How are there about 1000 pupils at Hogwarts?

[YellowRose]

Perhaps there are more than one house class to a year? I mean, where does it state that Harry, Ron, Dean, Seamus and Dean are absolutely the only Gryffindor boys of their year?

[HPGramp]

JKR did not even consider the number when creating the books and only made it worse by trying to come up with a number in later interviews. It is just like trying to figure out how a single DADA teacher can handle teaching the 20+ classes (mandatory for 1st thru 5th years, 6th and 7th year NEWT classes; single house per class) in a realisitc schedule that has you in the class more then once a week. I like numbers and these type of problems have driven me nuts is PS.

[SquiggyDralion]

Originally Posted by HPGramp

JKR did not even consider the number when creating the books and only made it worse by trying to come up with a number in later interviews. It is just like trying to figure out how a single DADA teacher can handle teaching the 20+ classes (mandatory for 1st thru 5th years, 6th and 7th year NEWT classes; single house per class) in a realisitc schedule that has you in the class more then once a week. I like numbers and these type of problems have driven me nuts is PS.

Yeah, well she's proved on several occasions and has admitted herself that she is not very good with math. For instance, if you notice, many of the dates in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Then and Quidditch Through the Ages are impossible given what we know about the time line of the books, the most obvious being the date of publication, which is after Dumbledore died.

[VernonDudley]

I've been wondering the same question. If there really are 1000 or 680, wouldn't 4 not-so-big common rooms be too small?

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by VernonDudley

I've been wondering the same question. If there really are 1000 or 680, wouldn't 4 not-so-big common rooms be too small?

Rowling acknowledged a couple of times that there are not 1000 or 600 students at Hogwarts: when she came up with those numbers, she just made up numbers that sounded good to her. She admitted that she just did not think to multiply 7 x 40. Indeed, even when she said this, she did not do the multiplication: Rowling has (as she has noted) big hangups about maths.

[annejet123]

Originally Posted by asdfasdf17

This is just something I was curious about. Since in Harry's year there are 5 boys in Gryffindor (Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean and Seamus) I was wondering who the fifth boy would be in the Marauder's year. I know there was James, Sirius, Remus and Wormtail and I thought that maybe the fifth one would be Frank Longbottom?
I'm not sure if it was ever confirmed by J.K Rowling and its not very relevant to anything but I was just wondering.

I don't think there have to be exactly 5 boys, as each year a different number of students will attend Hogwarts and the sorting system would be really flawed if it had to put a certain amount of students in each house. It is possible that they were the only 5, but there could have been more. I can't remember anybody exactly their age and in griffindor, so I if there were more boys is Gryffindor, I think we don't know them.

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by annejet123

I don't think there have to be exactly 5 boys, as each year a different number of students will attend Hogwarts and the sorting system would be really flawed if it had to put a certain amount of students in each house. It is possible that they were the only 5, but there could have been more. I can't remember anybody exactly their age and in griffindor, so I if there were more boys is Gryffindor, I think we don't know them.

That's possible! I remember once, a while back, Rowling said that there were 1,000 students in Hogwarts. There was a lot of debate over the accuracy of this because many people were using the assumption that there are 10 students in each house (i.e 5 boys and 5 girls) in order to calculate how many total there should be. I suppose this assumption could have been wrong.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I doubt it was Frank Longbottom - he and Alice were highly respected Aurors when they were attacked, so I think they were a bit older than Lily and James.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that!

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by asdfasdf17

That's possible! I remember once, a while back, Rowling said that there were 1,000 students in Hogwarts. There was a lot of debate over the accuracy of this because many people were using the assumption that there are 10 students in each house (i.e 5 boys and 5 girls) in order to calculate how many total there should be. I suppose this assumption could have been wrong.

Actually, a number of students in the neighbourhood of 1000 also comes directly from one of the books (I think it was PoA), where the book says that while three-quarters of the crowd was cheering for Gryffindor (at a Quidditch match), there were still 200 supporting Slytherin. That, of course, would put the number at approximately 800.

I think we would have to conclude that 5 students was not the magic number of students in every year of each gender in each house. I think it's also worth noting that the students' dormitories are maintained throughout their seven year stay, rather than having a 1st-year dorm, a 2nd-year dorm, etc. This would be consistent with the school wanting to avoid having to resize and refurnish each dormitory every year.

With regards to the Marauders' year, there could have been numerous other students who were in that year, and simply didn't follow James, Sirius and Remus around, just like Dean and Seamus weren't part of 'the trio.'

[horcrux4]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Actually, a number of students in the neighbourhood of 1000 also comes directly from one of the books (I think it was PoA), where the book says that while three-quarters of the crowd was cheering for Gryffindor (at a Quidditch match), there were still 200 supporting Slytherin. That, of course, would put the number at approximately 800.

I think we would have to conclude that 5 students was not the magic number of students in every year of each gender in each house. I think it's also worth noting that the students' dormitories are maintained throughout their seven year stay, rather than having a 1st-year dorm, a 2nd-year dorm, etc. This would be consistent with the school wanting to avoid having to resize and refurnish each dormitory every year.

The number of students at Hogwarts has long been a matter of debate. There appear to be about 40 in Harry's year - 10 Gryffs that we know of, 10 Slytherins (Madam Hooch put out 20 brooms for the Gryff/Slyth flying lesson) and 10 Hufflepuffs (Sprout puts out 20 earmuffs for the Gryff/Huff lesson). There may have been more Ravenclaws but we aren't told how many. If that number was usual there would only be 280 students in total not the 1,000 Jo claimed. I think she later reduced the number in an interview to about 600. Taking off the 40 in Harry's year that leaves 560 for the other 6 years, an average of 95 students in each year or 24 per house. That's a lot when you get joint classes like Potions.

What's more there only appear to be about 13 staff (if you include Dumbledore). I've taught in schools with 500+ students and we had lots more than one staff member per subject. The Hogwarts staff even manage free periods (Snape is in the staffroom when Lupin takes his group in to study the boggart, McGonagall & Grubbly-Plank are both there when Harry takes Hedwig to have her wing seen to). It makes no sense at all!

[chinofjim]

I've heard the theory put forward before that although there may normally be 500-1000 students in the school, the actual number of students in and around Harry's year is much reduced due to the impact of the 1st wizarding war having decimated the wizard population of UK

That makes sense to me

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by chinofjim

I've heard the theory put forward before that although there may normally be 500-1000 students in the school, the actual number of students in and around Harry's year is much reduced due to the impact of the 1st wizarding war having decimated the wizard population of UK

That makes sense to me

It doesn't deal with the fact that the books indicate a school population of 800 students during Harry's time.

[chinofjim]

That's true. I guess we are left with the fact that Rowling has always admitted that she deals with numbers and other 'logistical' matters in a fairly impressionistic way.

[ShadowSonic]

Also, the population of Wizarding UK is only a few thousand people isn't it? Kind of strange they need such a huge bureaucracy at the Ministry for a relatively small population.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

Also, the population of Wizarding UK is only a few thousand people isn't it? Kind of strange they need such a huge bureaucracy at the Ministry for a relatively small population.

As I recall the original number was 3,000; later 30,000. Or maybe 50,000.

[ShadowSonic]

From 3,000 to 30,000? That's quite the jump...

Even then, that's still not so big to require such a bureaucracy.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by willfitz

It doesn't deal with the fact that the books indicate a school population of 800 students during Harry's time.

It doesn't really dispute that either. We know there are approximately 40 students in Harry's year - give or take since we don't know exactly how many students were in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw for that year. There were no specific numbers given for the students in the other years so there's no contradiction in that respect because, logistically, it would never be the same exact number of students per house per year. Some years would have more - some may even have less. Using a real life example, my oldest son's graduating class was around 350 students where his younger brother's graduating class was around 225 students a couple of years later.

I've never seen any reason to assume that there would always be exactly 40 students in each year divided up exactly to 10 students per house per year - or that it would always be 5 girls and 5 boys per house per year. The latter wasn't even the case in Harry's year as Slytherin house had 6 boys and 4 girls I think and Hufflepuff appears to have had 7 boys and 3 girls for that year. If Su Li was female - I'm not entirely sure on that - then Ravenclaw had 6 boys and 4 girls as well. Hufflepuff house may not have had 10 students in Harry's year as well - three of the boys can only be determined to have attended Hogwarts in the 90's and could have been a year or two ahead or behind Harry.

COS reveals that there were approximately 200 students in Slytherin. POA has Harry noting that there were "at least a hundred stagecoaches" for the students in 2nd through 7th year to travel from the train to the castle - which we see have the capacity for about 6-8 students in OOTP. That would accomodate 600 to 800 students from 2nd to 7th year. In GOF, Harry notes that the four house tables in the Great Hall had been replaced with about 100 smaller tables that each sat 12 people during the Yule Ball - which was open to students in 4th year and above. That provided seating for about 1200 people - around 30 of which would have been from Beauxbatons, Durmstrang, and the Ministry. The rest were students and staff from Hogwarts. I think it was made pretty clear in the books that there were around 800 to 1000 students at Hogwarts with the numbers varying year to year.

[Dedalus Diggle]

It would not be surprising if people during the first Voldemort War had largely curtailed baby-making, as babies made escape much more difficult and presented another point of vulnerability to blackmail. This would have reached its peak, or nadir if you will, in the year after Harry's birth. That was the year that Voldemort's power was destroyed. After that, it would seem safe to return to building a family. So the ten students in Gryffindor Harry's year could really have just been the anomalous result of suppressed reproduction.

[chinofjim]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

That was the year that Voldemort's power was destroyed. After that, it would seem safe to return to building a family. So the ten students in Gryffindor Harry's year could really have just been the anomalous result of suppressed reproduction.

That makes sense, and the years following Voldemort's disappearance would have 'baby boomer' years (much as happened here in the UK after the 2nd world war, which is why there was such a youth culture explosion at the beginning of the sixties), which would imply that the Hogwarts pupil intake in the years below Harry would have been higher than Harry's year

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

It doesn't really dispute that either.

I know, I was just replying to the theory that Hogwarts had a shrunken population during Harry's stay, and thus that the size of Harry's Gryffindor year could be taken as representative of a typical year size in that time period.

I was simply pointing out that, in fact, the population of Hogwarts at that time is shown to be around 800, so it isn't shrunken to the point where the numbers in Harry's house 'fit.'

I am perfectly happy to accept that there are varying numbers of students in each year, and in each house, though of course in Harry's year we know that there were only 10 students in each of three of the houses. In a books, of course, there is no need to introduce the hundreds of students who don't play a role in Harry's experiences at Hogwarts.

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

It would not be surprising if people during the first Voldemort War had largely curtailed baby-making, as babies made escape much more difficult and presented another point of vulnerability to blackmail. This would have reached its peak, or nadir if you will, in the year after Harry's birth. That was the year that Voldemort's power was destroyed. After that, it would seem safe to return to building a family. So the ten students in Gryffindor Harry's year could really have just been the anomalous result of suppressed reproduction.

Didn't Molly indicate that people were pairing up left, right and centre during the war, given the sense of mortality which became much more apparent? I would have to assume that pregnancies would have spiked proportionally to some extent. And I wouldn't expect the elevated birth rate to come down for some time after the war.

So honestly, if the war was going to have any effect on the number of babies born, I would expect it to increase.

Originally Posted by chinofjim

That makes sense, and the years following Voldemort's disappearance would have 'baby boomer' years (much as happened here in the UK after the 2nd world war, which is why there was such a youth culture explosion at the beginning of the sixties), which would imply that the Hogwarts pupil intake in the years below Harry would have been higher than Harry's year

The difference between the First War in the Wizarding World and the World Wars in this regard is firstly the proportion of people who were actively fighting as soldiers against Voldemort, and secondly the fact that most of the population would still be living at home, trying to live normally during the war, rather than being off overseas for years at a time.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by willfitz

I am perfectly happy to accept that there are varying numbers of students in each year, and in each house, though of course in Harry's year we know that there were only 10 students in each of three of the houses.

It was indicated on Pottermore that the 40 or so named and sorted students on JKR's list were not the entirety of Harry's year, she just wanted to create a group of students that she could pull from should she need a student for something like in COS when Ernie and the other Hufflepuffs sit around talking about Harry or when she needs a Slytherin character for something.

Personally, I never thought that list of 40 students comprised the entire list of students in Harry's year.

I agree with Meesha's other calculations of the student population at Hogwarts. Everything seems to point to something between 800-1000 students at Hogwarts.

The difference between the First War in the Wizarding World and the World Wars in this regard is [snip] the fact that most of the population would still be living at home, trying to live normally during the war, rather than being off overseas for years at a time.

This is the crux of the issue, I think. During the World Wars, the men were mostly shipped away where they couldn't be makin' babies with their wives or girlfriends simply due to problems of proximity. During the first war with Voldemort in the '70s, he was a threat in Britain, he lived in Britain, all his followers were in Britain, all his opponents were in Britain... nobody joined the army and got shipped away, they were all still there in their own cities and towns, living at home with their husbands and wives...

Also, if you want to talk making babies, the first war certainly didn't stop Molly and Arthur from having any - Bill, Charlie and Percy were born during the first war and Fred and George were born right around the time Voldemort fell or just after. While I don't think the Weasleys should really be used as the average for the entire wizarding world, with what we know of Molly and Arthur and how worried and scared they were during the first war, it certainly didn't seem to dampen their enthusiasm for building their family during a homegrown war.